Few studies have investigated the safety and efficacy of anti-PD-(L)1 antibodies in metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) in daily clinical practice. Knowledge about the influence of baseline ...clinical and analytical factors on therapy outcomes is scarce.
We conducted a multicenter retrospective study involving 119 previously treated or untreated mUC patients under anti-PD-(L)1 therapy in a real-world scenario. The objectives of this study were to confirm the safety and efficacy of anti-PD-(L)1 monotherapy and to identify pretreatment factors influencing therapy outcomes. In addition, an independent prognostic model for overall survival (OS) was developed and internally validated.
Median OS was 7.8 months 95% confidence interval (CI), 5.4-10.4, median progression-free survival (PFS) was 2.80 months (95% CI, 2.4-3.4), disease control rate (DCR) was 40% (95% CI, 31-49), and overall response rate (ORR) was 24% (95% CI, 15-31). Presence of peritoneal metastases was associated with poor OS hazard ratio (HR) = 2.40, 95% CI, 1.08-5.33; P = 0.03. Use of proton-pump inhibitors (PPI) was associated with poor OS (HR = 1.83, 95% CI, 1.11-3.02; P = 0.02) and PFS (HR = 1.94, 95% CI, 1.22-3.09; P = 0.005), and lower DCR (OR = 0.38, 95% CI, 0.17-0.89; P = 0.03) and ORR (OR = 0.18, 95% CI, 0.02-1.60; P = 0.002). The three risk category prognostic model developed included Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, PPI use, albumin level, presence of liver metastases, and presence of peritoneal metastases variables and was associated with higher risk of death (HR = 3.00, 95% CI, 1.97-4.56; P = 0.0001).
This study confirms anti-PD-(L)1 monotherapy as a safe and effective treatment option in daily clinical practice for mUC patients. It also describes the presence of peritoneal metastases as an independent prognostic factor for OS and underlines the association between PPI use and worse therapeutic outcomes. Finally, it proposes a new easy-to-use risk-assessment model for OS prediction.
•Monotherapy with anti-PD-(L)1 antibodies is a safe and effective treatment option in mUC.•Peritoneal metastases represent an independent prognostic factor in mUC.•The use of PPI correlates with poor therapeutic outcomes.•A new three risk category prognostic model enables OS prediction.
Background
This article describes and compares approved targeted therapies and the newer immunotherapy agents.
Materials and methods
This article especially performs an in-depth review of currently ...available data for tivozanib, explaining its mechanism of action, its safety profile and its role as an efficacy drug in the management of renal cancer.
Results
Despite the fact that the treatment of advanced RCC has been dramatically modified in recent years, durable remissions are scarce and it remains a lethal disease. For first- and second-line therapy, there is now growing evidence to guide the selection of the appropriate treatment.
Conclusions
Several TKIs are standard of care at different settings. Among those approved TKIs, tivozanib has similar efficacy than others with a better safety profile. The use of prognostic factors is critical to the selection of optimal therapy.
Despite the advent of immunotherapy in urothelial cancer, there is still a need to find effective cytotoxic agents beyond first and second lines. Vinflunine is the only treatment approved in this ...setting by the European Medicines Agency and taxanes are also widely used in second line. Cabazitaxel is a taxane with activity in docetaxel-refractory cancers. A randomized study was conducted to compare its efficacy versus vinflunine.
This is a multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase II/III study, following a Simon’s optimal method with stopping rules based on an interim futility analysis and a formal efficacy analysis at the end of the phase II. ECOG Performance Status, anaemia and liver metastases were stratification factors. Primary objectives were overall response rate for the phase II and overall survival for the phase III.
Seventy patients were included in the phase II across 19 institutions in Europe. Baseline characteristics were well balanced between the two arms. Three patients (13%) obtained a partial response on cabazitaxel (95% CI 2.7–32.4) and six patients (30%) in the vinflunine arm (95% CI 11.9–54.3). Median progression-free survival for cabazitaxel was 1.9 versus 2.9months for vinflunine (P=0.039). The study did not proceed to phase III since the futility analysis showed a lack of efficacy of cabazitaxel. A trend for overall survival benefit was found favouring vinflunine (median 7.6 versus 5.5months). Grade 3- to 4-related adverse events were seen in 41% patients with no difference between the two arms.
This phase II/III second line bladder study comparing cabazitaxel with vinflunine was closed when the phase II showed a lack of efficacy of the cabazitaxel arm. Vinflunine results were consistent with those known previously.
NCT01830231.
Zoledronic acid in genitourinary cancer Climent, M. A.; Anido, U.; Méndez-Vidal, M. J. ...
Clinical & translational oncology,
11/2013, Volume:
15, Issue:
11
Journal Article
Peer reviewed
Bone metastases are a common complication of advanced prostate cancer and while they are less common in non-prostate genitourinary (GU) malignances, they have been reported in up to 35 % of patients ...with advanced renal cell carcinoma and bladder cancer. Furthermore, they may occur in more than two-thirds of those patients with bladder cancer who develop distant metastases. In the absence of bone-targeted therapies, approximately 50 % of all patients with metastatic bone disease from GU cancers experience at least one skeletal-related event within their lifetime. Zoledronic acid is a bisphosphonate that has been shown to delay or prevent the development of skeletal complications in patients with bone metastases and reduce bone pain in these patients. Furthermore, zoledronic acid has also demonstrated the ability to prevent osteopenia, which may occur with the prolonged use of some pharmacological interventions in patients with cancer.
Lynch syndrome (LS) is caused by germline mutations in one of the four mismatch repair (MMR) genes. Defects in this pathway lead to microsatellite instability (MSI) in DNA tumors, which constitutes ...the molecular hallmark of this disease. Selection of patients for genetic testing in LS is usually based on fulfillment of diagnostic clinical criteria (i.e. Amsterdam criteria or the revised Bethesda guidelines). However, following these criteria PMS2 mutations have probably been underestimated as their penetrances appear to be lower than those of the other MMR genes. The use of universal MMR study‐based strategies, using MSI testing and immunohistochemical (IHC) staining, is being one proposed alternative. Besides, germline mutation detection in PMS2 is complicated by the presence of highly homologous pseudogenes. Nevertheless, specific amplification of PMS2 by long‐range polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and the improvement of the analysis of large deletions/duplications by multiplex ligation‐dependent probe amplification (MLPA) overcome this difficulty. By using both approaches, we analyzed 19 PMS2‐suspected carriers who have been selected by clinical or universal strategies and found five large deletions and one frameshift mutation in PMS2 in six patients (31%). Owing to the high incidence of large deletions found in our cohort, we recommend MLPA analysis as the first‐line method for searching germline mutations in PMS2.
We performed a literature search that shed light on the signaling pathways involved in the sorafenib activity as first- or subsequent-line treatment, taking into account its toxicity profile. ...Sorafenib appears to have better tolerability when compared with other agents in the same indication. Cross-resistance between tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) may be limited, even after failure with a previous VEGFR inhibitor, but the optimal sequence with TKIs remains to be determined. Randomized trials of second-line treatment options have showed either modest or no differences in terms of progression-free and overall survival (OS). Direct comparison between sorafenib and axitinib demonstrated differences in terms of PFS in favor of axitinib, but not in terms of OS as second-line treatment. In contrast, a phase III study showed a benefit in OS, favoring sorafenib when compared with temsirolimus. In conclusion, after using other VEGF inhibitor such as sunitinib, sorafenib is active and safe for the treatment of patients with advanced or metastatic RCC.
PDF
